Ignorance as Disability--yes, or no?

[catsittingstill]

I was poking around the Web this morning and came across an amusing post (presumably inspired by April Fool's Day): Top 10 Creationist Discoveries of All Time.

And this kind of got my thoughts running along these lines, inspired by, but not really a response to the post in question:

1) obviously we don't make fun of disabled people; that's just a) wrong and b) deeply uncool. 

2)So we don't make fun of mentally disabled people either.  Wrong and uncool; we're all on the same page here, I'm pretty sure.

3) This would logically mean that we shouldn't make fun of stupid people--but sometimes I do.  Or at least, I make fun of people who I call stupid because they have nutbar ideas that they insist on spreading.

4) But having nutbar ideas doesn't necessarily mean someone is stupid (can't learn--arguably a genuine disability that one shouldn't make fun of).  It may just mean that someone is ignorant (doesn't know better, but could learn better under the right circumstances.)

5) But sometimes ignorance isn't the ignorant person's fault.  Perhaps the ignorant person has never had the opportunity to learn.  Perhaps the ignorant person was even deliberately taught the nutbar ideas as a gullible child and carefully innoculated against any appeals to rationality and logic and evidence that might have made it possible for the ignorant person to learn.

If the ignorant person's ignorance was deliberately created and maintained by others, is the ignorant person the innocent victim of a disability?  Is making fun of the ignorant person wrong and cruel, the way making fun of somebody in a wheelchair is wrong and cruel?

I'm having a hard time deciding.

Comments

[phillip2637.livejournal.com]

It seems to me that it takes a great amount of intentional effort for an adult (who does not suffer from some learning disability) to remain ignorant of alternate points of view -- especially on subjects where the person professes to know "the truth". I realize that there were historical times and places where that would not have been true, but in most of North America today I'd bet the odds favour willful ignorance over induced ignorance.

[peteralway.livejournal.com]

Or at least, I make fun of people who I call stupid because they have nutbar ideas that they insist on spreading.

Immediately above your post on my friends list is a (friendslocked) post by tammylc. As a side-line, she is a specialty chocolatier. One of her recent projects is to develop a line of candy bars. And so just seconds before reading your post, I read her blogging about issues of how the crunchiness of nuts declines with time, and how to alter her recipies so that the bars with nuts will be a fine culinary experience.

So I can tell you with some certainty that, at least in one case, it is neither justified nor in good taste to make fun of someone or call her stupid just because she has nutbar ideas that she insists on spreading.

mmm...nutbar...

[wyld-dandelyon.livejournal.com]

I think there is an important and significant difference between making fun of an absurd idea and making fun of a person who believes it.

However, I'm pretty sure that many people feel pretty much the same if you make fun of them personally or if you make fun of something they believe.

On the other hand, laughter can be healing, and can sometimes help someone let go of things they were taught to believe but that logically they know don't make sense.

I think the boundary line between offensive and funny depends on audience far more than on intent.

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

If the victim is truly innocent, then making fun of them is IMNASHO not cool.

OTOH, there is a distinction between "innocently ignorant" and "deliberately ignorant." If the offender has been out in the world, unsheltered, with the opportunity presented to learn better, and actively refuses in favor of sticking his head in the sand or worse, mocking us and saying we're going to hell for daring to think for ourselves? Again, IMNASHO.... he deserves all the satire, snark, and derisive humor we can heap on him.

Why can't they get the picture? Why don't they understand?
We're not dealing with the planet of apes,
we're talking about the modern man.
So you people with them itsy bitsy teensie weensie tiny minds...

Here's your sign. Here's your sign.
    -- Engvall and Tritt, "Here's Your Sign"

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Um. I concede that hadn't given proper thought to this issue.

If it's any consolation, I'm sure I would not have thought her stupid for spreading these particular nutbar ideas. As a matter of fact, I'll be happy to participate in the testing, either as a member of the nutbar group or as a member of the control (plain chocolate) group.

[hitchkitty.livejournal.com]

Ignorance can be cured. It's simply a lack of information.

Stupidity (which I've never defined as "can't learn" but "won't learn") is self-imposed.

[unclehaakon.livejournal.com]

First, let me state for the record, that as a white (in places painfully white, hence the old ban on me taking my shirt off in public) male who is over 40 but under 65, I belong to one of the few groups even the most rabidly politically correct find it ok to make fun of. Toss in the fact that I now live in a rural area of a mostly rural state, and I start becoming a walking punch line. Now, add smoking to the mix, and you've got yourself guaranteed hilarity at my expense.

One of the internet boards I'm active on found it necessary to create a forum just for "Evolution vs Creation" debates. The topic of "Creationism" crops up regularly on many other science related sites I frequent.

Frankly, ridiculing these people just seems to feed some sort of "martyr" complex. They seem to thrive on it. Debating them just brings out the same tired arguments on their end, usually based on the same translation of the Bible, or the same misconceptions about how science works.

Since debate is futile, you can only ignore them and hope they'll go away (they won't) or expose their ideas for the mess they are. Humor is a good way to do this, and may help a few of these folks examine the world around them. It may even convince them to think for themselves.

Believing the universe is only 6000 years old is fine. It's your right to believe anything you wish. However, when you push that belief on others, you've opened the door to all the ridicule you deserve. When you insist that every school child be forcibly exposed to your beliefs, and only your beliefs, you;ve crossed a line between your faith and my rights.

So, yes, I'll poke fun at them if I feel like it. In effect, they've thrown the first punch, and I'm merely acting in self-defense.

Let me ask a simple question: would you have the same qualms about poking fun at a racist, or a criminal?

[smallship1.livejournal.com]

Making fun of any real person for a perceived inferiority is a bit dodgy in my book. Whatever the perceived inferiority might be. But of course I could be wrong on that, and you shouldn't take what I say as necessarily significant in any way.

[smoooom.livejournal.com]

we're talking about mocking people's beliefs. As a Christian, I find many fundimentalist ideas . . . disturbing. Mocking them simply makes them more "I'm better than you are" I just try and ignore those who would tell me I'm wrong (on both sides) and let them be. who they are. I don't always manage but I do try.

We do live in two countries where freedom is alllowed. Both to beleive (oe not) and to belittle.

[madfilkentist]

If someone really is just slow, I wouldn't make fun of that person. But constructing elaborate arguments on blatant fallacies is a different matter; it takes a good amount of misdirected mental effort to come up with such things. Those are a perfectly legitimate target for ridicule.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Well, I grant you that it's practically impossible for a normal adult to be unaware that there are alternate points of view. I'm just wondering where induced ignorance leaves off and willful ignorance begins.

For instance, if a child is taught a) the earth was made in 7 days about 6,000 years ago and b) if she questions "a" she will go to hell--is it really willful ignorance on her part to refuse to consider the arguments for a 4.5 billion year old earth? It's the "b" part that's really a kicker--if the child never lets go of that, there's no way to get at the incorrect beliefs in "a", and I wonder how often "b" is taught and how big a role it plays in preserving demonstrably incorrect beliefs.

I suppose there might be some way to get at that with surveys, and such.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

These all make sense to me.

[peteralway.livejournal.com]

I had thought you were an intelligent woman who, while secure in her beliefs, could be swayed by a cogent argument supported by facts, and you have not disappointed me. I do not believe that there are current positions available for quality control or developmental testing, however I will point out that if such an opportunity should arise, that the chocolatier in question resides at the site of the Acorn Music and Verse house sings, the next one of which, I might add, is scheduled for July 12.

[judifilksign.livejournal.com]

Perhaps I am an awful person, because I enjoy poking fun at people who are willfully ignorant, especially public figures such as "W," and I feel he deserves all the satire, snark, and derisive humor we can heap on him.

As a teacher for students who frequently are ignorant, due to either environment or willfulness, I am amazingly P.C.

I guess I snark at folks I don't personally know who offend me with my perception of their stupidity.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I think this may be part of what I'm feeling--if I don't know someone and they say something wildly at odds with the real world, I feel pretty free to be derisive. Hopefully usually about the idea, but, realistically, probably about the person too.

Whereas if I know someone I feel much less comfortable being derisive. No matter how much I would have felt they deserved it had I known their views, but not them.

Except that even someone I know can exceed the bounds of my patience--it just takes more.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Well, if it's the elaborate arguments that are a legitimate target for ridicule, this would tend to fall under the "make fun of the idea not the person" rule, and if it's the peple who construct the elaborate arguments that are legitimate targets, it would tend to fall under the "it's okay to make fun of the willfully ignorant" rule.

They both seem like reasonable approaches to me at the moment--I'm just not entirely sure which one you're advocating, or whether you have something different in mind.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I very much sympathize with this point of view. I have had the experience of arguing with someone who seemed impervious to logic, who brushed aside evidence, who was arrogant and condescending and yet expected me to do all the research for his side of the argument (he could never remember where a particular assertion came from, for instance) and my side of the argument too. It was infuriating; he believed what he believed because he wanted to believe it, yet he would claim (for instance) that I believed in evolution because I had a deep emotional need for there to be no god.

Him I would cheerfully make fun of (am cheerfully making fun of--you know how an evangelical fundamentalist admits he's wrong? He changes the subject).

But what about his kids? They believe the same whackjob stuff, for obvious reasons; at what point in their development should I think of them as being responsible for their own minds?

I'm not demanding an answer, by the way. Just kind of following the thread in my own head.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I think of it as "ignorance=lack of information" like you said, and "intelligence" and "stupidity" both describe the rate of change of ignorance when exposed to new information. Intelligence is a rapid negative rate of change of ignorance (ignorance gets rapidly smaller). Stupidity is slow (or zero) negative rate of change of ignorance (ignorance gets slowly smaller or doesn't change).

The way I think of it, stupidity can be willful (won't learn) or involuntary (can't learn). I hold willful stupidity in contempt, but feel sympathy for involuntary stupidity.

I'm just wondering about the grey area where a decision not to learn is being made because of mental restrictions applied early in life. This is arguably willful stupidity. But if someone's mind was bound as a child (like having your feet bound), can we reasonably expect people to get over it? Some people obviously succeed; does that mean everybody can succeed, or does it mean some people have more resilient minds than others?

I wonder if anyone's tried to look for common characteristics in people who overcome a fundamentalist upbringing to be more open to science.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Frankly, ridiculing these people just seems to feed some sort of "martyr" complex.

True. On the other hand, *everything* feeds these people's martyr complexes.

Humor is a good way to do this, and may help a few of these folks examine the world around them. It may even convince them to think for themselves.

A number of other people I admire also have this view, and I think I largely agree with it.

Let me ask a simple question: would you have the same qualms about poking fun at a racist, or a criminal?
A racist, no; if I could figure out a way to make racism funny, I'd let them have it. Well, if it was someone I knew I might try to talk her out of it using sweet reason first. But it definitely gets my hackles up.

A criminal--believe it or not, it would depend on what the criminal had done and why. (Go ahead--call me a liberal. I'm proud of it.) Someone who tried to pull the front off an ATM, sure. Someone caught using marijuana to ease the pain of chemo, nope.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I appreciate your saying it anyway. And I see your point.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Well, we are. And some of those beliefs are very strongly held, and seeing them mocked will cause some people pain.

I think that strong beliefs that can't be re-evaluated in the light of evidence to the contrary can be counterproductive, or even dangerous.

But that doesn't change the fact that using humor to point out that the beliefs are silly is going to hurt people.

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

I'm not demanding an answer, by the way. Just kind of following the thread in my own head.

Understood... but it is a good place to take the argument.

There will come a point in their development, and with fundamentalists' kids it's often sooner rather than later, where they will rebel. When they start to take responsibility for their own morals/ethics, then we the thinking should let them, and expect them to. Sometimes it takes a while, and we have to be patient (and perhaps encouraging, if possible)...

But until they get the idea that they *can* think for themselves, I don't think we can expect them to. Nor hold them responsible for what they've been force-fed.

Not sure chronological age has much to do with it.

(My philosophy professor said there are ideas you own, and ideas that own you. Far too many people are owned by their ideas... and frankly the 'l33t' concept of 0wn3d applies here... little fundie zombies wandering around spamming the 'verse, oblivious of the damage... )

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

*chuckle* People *do* get over it all the time. I'd say the vast majority of the folks in "alternative" religions (shall we say) in your area are recovering Baptists. We never bothered to figure out what was different about those that did get over it vs. those that didn't...

Can we expect everyone to escape that tar baby? Well, no. Like any illness, it has a certain mortality rate. And it's a highly sensitive subject to study in any organized fashion. Certainly an interesting question, though.

As for what to do about folks in that situation? Frankly I think the Rabbi had a good idea: Try to correct their ignorance - once. If they get all upset and defensive and don't wanna talk about it? Walk away, and don't come back.

[robin-june.livejournal.com]

-you know how an evangelical fundamentalist admits he's wrong? He changes the subject).

Dear God, YES!!! Oh, so true! So true!



Signed -- the closeted Democrat scientist, who was first taught evolution by a teacher who was a Catholic nun -- back them she wasn't crossing any proscribed boundaries.

[hitchkitty.livejournal.com]

I think you've just hit on one of the biggest arguments in favor of mandatory education for children: counteracting mental footbindings placed by (we be charitable and assume) well-meaning parents.

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

Well, "there is no should." That said, sneering at ignorance is the quickest way I know to get people to defend their ignorance; part of the reason we have so many problems with believers is that they've been ridiculed for their core beliefs. There are times when there really isn't anything to be said, or where parables and puzzles are all that can be said, which is probably why spiritual teachers are so fond of them.

[unclehaakon.livejournal.com]

On my use of the word "criminals":

My bad for not being specific enough. Frankly, there are many things that are technically illegal that I don't see as "wrong". Getting caught doing one of them would make someone a criminal in a strictly legal sense, but let's never forget that the founding fathers of the US were all technically guilty of high treason against the Crown. Had the war gone the other way, they would quite likely have faced imprisonment or even execution for their crimes.

So, instead of "criminal", let's say "someone who commits a crime against the lives and/or property of others, or who commits an act that morally outrages you." It's a bit cumbersome, though, and covers a lot of gray area.

On your being a "liberal":

Nothing wrong with that, just as there is nothing wrong with being a "conservative". As long as your opinions are the result of informed choices, how those opinions line up with some artificial definition shouldn't be anyone's concern. I am "liberal" on some things, "conservative" on other issues, and downright libertarian on still others.

Make your choices based on your life experience, what you are able to learn about the issues, and most importantly, your own sense of "right" and "wrong". In other words, "to thine own self be true".

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Hmm. :-9

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I was under the impression that the Catholic church is still less hostile to evolution than some of the Protestant varieties.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Well, yes; I didn't mean to suggest that it's impossible to get over it. But the ones who do get over it are not a very big percentage.

Does that mean that a) it is intrinsically hard to think for oneself or b) there is something about this memeset makes any false idea harder to shake or c) there is something about this memeset that makes this memeset harder to shake, but doesn't affect other false ideas?

The Rabbi's idea about dealing with such people sounds good to me, as long as these people aren't trying to force some bad policy on me based on their ignorance. They can believe the Earth is flat all day long but when they try to ban globes from the classroom, I feel like I have to combat that ignorance.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

This is one of the reasons I'm dubious about homeschooling. I understand parents' desire to provide enriched educational environments for their children but I worry that many homeschoolers do it specifically so that their kids' ignorance will never be jostled by contact with someone who has different ideas.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

With the expanded explanation of what you mean by criminal, sure I'd make fun of such a person if I came up with a way to do it that didn't belittle what they'd done or mock the people they'd hurt. (Obviously :-)

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

part of the reason we have so many problems with believers is that they've been ridiculed for their core beliefs

That has not been my perception. I don't remember anyone making fun of religion when I was a kid; the religous people around me were on top of the heap and the rest of us kept our heads down and didn't let on that we disagreed.

[judifilksign.livejournal.com]

I think I am pretty similar with how you handle things.

Because I'm pretty perky, I am frequently accused of being PollyAnna and really nice most of the time, to an irritating degree. But when someone has exceeded the bounds of my patience, and I am derisive and snarky, it tends to really shock folks. I guess they don't expect it - even when they have experience of me snarking before!

[hitchkitty.livejournal.com]

I've exchanged e-mails with one proponent of homeschooling who, not to mince words, is a rightwing nutjob. He believes homosexuality is a disease, torture an effective interrogation technique, and evolution a hoax.

On the other hand, I've encountered someone who put forward the idea of homeschooling as a way to protect one's child from the cement-mixer effects of the public school system. He frequently falls to the left of me.

I don't know that it's entirely fair to describe the motives of the first type as making sure "their kids' ignorance will never be jostled". The first type would claim they don't want to gummint deciding what their kids should know. In my more cynical moments, I translate that as "I don't want my kids being told I'm wrong".

Homeschooling doensn't have to be about keeping the kids under parental mind-control. Unfortunately, it can easily be applied to that end.

[hitchkitty.livejournal.com]

At one point, John Paul II endorsed evolutionary theory, so yeah.
Not that this has stopped at least one Catholic of my acquaintance from pushing for Intelligent Design.

One might point out, though, that "less hostile to evolution than some of the Protestant varieties" is a bit like "tallest midget in the circus".